[Australia] Fair Work Commission’s first ruling on work-from-home challenge

In Australia, the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) decision to support a business challenged about its work-from-home policy could potentially be a win for employers. However, experts say it also provides clarity for those working remotely, The New Daily reports.

A workplace tribunal found that Maxxia - a salary packaging provider - had reasonable grounds to reject an employee’s request to work remotely because it helped the employee meet the company’s productivity targets, improve team culture and assist with training.

Dr Libby Sander - a workplace expert at Bond University - explained that the FWC would have taken into account performance and the employer’s request when making its decision.

“In this case, the employer has a requirement of 40 per cent of the time in the office,” she said.

“This employee was only working at or achieving 50 per cent of their productivity targets, so I think that decision also relates to that.”

The appeal to the FWC workplace tribunal was reportedly made possible because of the newly introduced Secure Jobs Better Pay workplace laws, which allow employees to appeal against an employer’s decision to refuse flexible working arrangements.

Dr Nataliya Ilyushina - economist and research fellow at RMIT University - told The New Daily that the FWC’s decisions will create guidelines for the future.

“It gives a lot of clarity as to the process and what’s wrong and what’s right, outlining the situation where requests for flexible work or 100 per cent work from home is reasonable and allowed,” she said.

“For example, it clearly states that a worker should be employed for 12 months on a full-time or part-time basis, and after that, they’re entitled to request a flexible work arrangement.”

The concept of ‘over employment,’ or holding multiple remote jobs at the same time, became more prominent during the pandemic and word has spread online, making it a popular way for workers to earn more at their employer’s expense.

Dr Ilyushina said there has been a great deal of discussion within businesses about workers beginning to take advantage of work-from-home arrangements.

“There have been reports of people taking on two jobs for example,” she said.

“The decision still has a lot of room for subjective judgment; what’s reasonable for one person may not seem reasonable to the manager.”

Dr Ilyushina said the reality is there are many jobs that can be done completely remotely, however, this can create disadvantages.

“There is solid research and evidence that you are much more likely to be promoted if you work in the office and that is common sense - you’re more visible to your manager,” she said.

“There is evidence that for workers who worked in the office before COVID and went to work from home, they improved their productivity. But for new hires that were hired straight into remote work, they weren’t as productive.”

A precedent

The FWC decision did test the Secure Jobs Better Pay laws for the first time but Dr Sander said it is important that the context of the situation is taken into account.

“The employer wasn’t being unreasonable. If they wanted the employee back in the office five days a week then perhaps it would have been a different comment,” she said.

“There’s been a lot of doom and gloom either way with this particular topic, but I don’t think we should read too much into it.”

Dr Sander stated that there is an important role for office and work-from-home arrangements in the modern workforce.

“Employees are in an employment relationship. There is a contract and these issues aren’t new to working from home.”

Source: The New Daily

(Links and quotes via original reporting)

In Australia, the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) decision to support a business challenged about its work-from-home policy could potentially be a win for employers. However, experts say it also provides clarity for those working remotely, The New Daily reports.

A workplace tribunal found that Maxxia - a salary packaging provider - had reasonable grounds to reject an employee’s request to work remotely because it helped the employee meet the company’s productivity targets, improve team culture and assist with training.

Dr Libby Sander - a workplace expert at Bond University - explained that the FWC would have taken into account performance and the employer’s request when making its decision.

“In this case, the employer has a requirement of 40 per cent of the time in the office,” she said.

“This employee was only working at or achieving 50 per cent of their productivity targets, so I think that decision also relates to that.”

The appeal to the FWC workplace tribunal was reportedly made possible because of the newly introduced Secure Jobs Better Pay workplace laws, which allow employees to appeal against an employer’s decision to refuse flexible working arrangements.

Dr Nataliya Ilyushina - economist and research fellow at RMIT University - told The New Daily that the FWC’s decisions will create guidelines for the future.

“It gives a lot of clarity as to the process and what’s wrong and what’s right, outlining the situation where requests for flexible work or 100 per cent work from home is reasonable and allowed,” she said.

“For example, it clearly states that a worker should be employed for 12 months on a full-time or part-time basis, and after that, they’re entitled to request a flexible work arrangement.”

The concept of ‘over employment,’ or holding multiple remote jobs at the same time, became more prominent during the pandemic and word has spread online, making it a popular way for workers to earn more at their employer’s expense.

Dr Ilyushina said there has been a great deal of discussion within businesses about workers beginning to take advantage of work-from-home arrangements.

“There have been reports of people taking on two jobs for example,” she said.

“The decision still has a lot of room for subjective judgment; what’s reasonable for one person may not seem reasonable to the manager.”

Dr Ilyushina said the reality is there are many jobs that can be done completely remotely, however, this can create disadvantages.

“There is solid research and evidence that you are much more likely to be promoted if you work in the office and that is common sense - you’re more visible to your manager,” she said.

“There is evidence that for workers who worked in the office before COVID and went to work from home, they improved their productivity. But for new hires that were hired straight into remote work, they weren’t as productive.”

A precedent

The FWC decision did test the Secure Jobs Better Pay laws for the first time but Dr Sander said it is important that the context of the situation is taken into account.

“The employer wasn’t being unreasonable. If they wanted the employee back in the office five days a week then perhaps it would have been a different comment,” she said.

“There’s been a lot of doom and gloom either way with this particular topic, but I don’t think we should read too much into it.”

Dr Sander stated that there is an important role for office and work-from-home arrangements in the modern workforce.

“Employees are in an employment relationship. There is a contract and these issues aren’t new to working from home.”

Source: The New Daily

(Links and quotes via original reporting)